convective_outlookDay-N convective outlook GeoJSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | 1 (default) | 2 | 3 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "day": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "day": 3
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "GeoJSON object containing convective outlook features",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond the format, but it does not contradict annotations. With strong annotations, the description is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key information. However, 'Day-N' is slightly cryptic and could be replaced with 'Day 1-3' for clarity. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits what a convective outlook represents (e.g., risk categories) and update frequency, but the output schema likely fills gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed description of the 'day' parameter (values 1, 2, 3, default 1). The description only says 'Day-N' which adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a 'Day-N convective outlook GeoJSON', identifying the resource (convective outlook) and format. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like mesoscale_discussions or storm_reports, though 'Day-N' could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mesoscale_discussions, storm_reports, or watches_active. The agent receives no help in choosing among related weather tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.